Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Adds real context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: the HTML payload is large (a cost/size warning), import_url is conditionally present, and plain text is the default. It stops short of describing error behavior for missing campaigns.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the default behavior and ending with the optional flag — every clause carries information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description does cover what comes back (plain text, import_url, optional HTML), which is the key thing an agent needs. A note on failure behavior would complete it.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters; the description reinforces include_html's cost ('large') and mentions a return field not in the schema, but adds no new parameter syntax. Baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource (get a campaign's plain-text content) and even scope the return (import_url, optional HTML). It is naturally distinct from the metadata-oriented laposta_get_campaign sibling, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The only usage cue is 'Set include_html to also get the full HTML (large)', which tells the agent when to opt in but not when to avoid this tool or what to use instead for non-content campaign data.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.